Re-elect Mark Serwotka, but...

Submitted by martin on 16 September, 2009 - 5:46 Author: A civil servant
Serwotka

Nominations for the post of General Secretary of the PCS civil service union has begun. Currently only two candidates are contesting the election; right winger Rob Bryson and the present incumbent, Mark Serwotka.

In this contest there is only one serious candidate and that is the present General Secretary (GS) . Not only has Rob Bryson no standing amongst activists in the Union, he has no track record of campaigning or putting forward polices within the union or indeed contributing in any serious way to the life and functioning of the PCS. That is not to say he will make a poor showing in the forthcoming election; when he stood for the post of Assistant General Secretary a few months ago he came within a few hundred votes of winning. His platform then was mainly that of red baiting and arguing that the Union was too political. Clearly this message had a resonance amongst members. His first leaflet for the GS election sticks to the themes he fought on earlier in the year but with an added twist of stating that since the time of Barry Reamsbottom (rabid right wing former GS) the influence of the Union had declined. Again 'politics' is to blame for this decline; Mr Bryson's remedy is that we should stick to being apolitical trade unionists.

Therefore all serious activists should support Mark Serwotka in the coming contest. All serous activists should equally be aware as to Mark Serwotka's track record since taking the top slot in the Union. Apart from pensions (more of that later) the current GS cannot claim through his actions to have improved the living conditions of members, despite ten years in post. We are no further closer to national pay, national conditions, guarantees on jobs and services than when he first was elected. It is literally true that he cannot point to anything he has done that has put an extra penny into any member's pay packet.

So what will he run on? He can say (correctly) that the Union is more of a campaigning organisation than previously (though as said this campaigning on pay, jobs has not delivered). He can say (rightly) that Rob Bryson is not a serious candidate; he can say that he is an effective media communicator; he can say that the Union is more legally active than before. In terms of winning improvements though the key thing he can campaign on is the pension deal won a few years ago.

The Government had threatened to change the final salary scheme for civil servants and to change the pension retirement age from 60 to 65; indeed these proposals were to apply to all public sector workers. Mr Serwotka “won” a reserved rights deal whereby existing civil servants at the time would keep the final salary scheme/the 60 pension retirement age but new entrants would be placed on a different scheme with a pension retirement age of 65; in other words Mr Serwotka agreed that there be a two tier workforce with the future generation of workers being on worse terms.

The effects of that deal are still being played out (as they will do for years to come). The Government is proposing drastic changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme; it wants to make it cheaper to cut staff. We have now discovered that new entrants not only have a poorer pension scheme, given the retirement age of 65 but that they are not covered by the Compensation Scheme as well; this means that they are only entitled to the legal minimum if they are made redundant. The Union has admitted that at least 29,000 workers are on these minimal terms (though we think the true figure is higher). Now we strongly doubt that the GS will mention these 29,000 plus staff on the lowest possible redundancy terms in his election campaign; but serious activists should be aware of this facet of the two tier deal and they should ask how was it possible that the Union allowed this to happen. Did they forget; did they hope it would never be discovered; did they not realise what the deal actually meant to new entrants? We have to find out.

Of course if the Tories are elected then the pension deal will be under threat; if is highly likely that New Labour will revisit the pension deal in any case. Now it could be argued that the deal, even if it turns out that it lasted only for a few years (though Mark Serwotka at the time claimed that an 18 year old under the deal was guaranteed to be able to retire at 60 with a final salary scheme pay out; in other words the deal would last for 42 years) protected some staff. The fact is, the initial offer from New Labour was that the pension changes would be come into force in 2011; under pressure they changed that to 2013 (indeed there were rumours that they would have put off the changes to 2018). Therefore staff who retired before the change over (in 2013 or 2018) would have been just as protected as under the current deal. It is highly likely that the Tories will want changes in our pension schemes - before 2013! Therefore, when examined, the pension deal is not the significant achievement it is claimed to be. Of course the pension fight, when it comes, will be fought by a two tier union where PCS will ask new entrants to fight for the reserved rights of older colleagues; not the best basis for any serous campaign.

That leaves Mark Serwotka's pay.

It is unfortunate that, despite his 2000 election commitment to live on a GS salary closer to that of the members, that in 2009 he was paid a gross salary of £85,421; with pension contributions of £24,669; Additional Housing Cost Allowance of £1,347; additional Housing Cost Supplement of £449 and beneficial loan interest of £748 (information source: the union’s official annual return to the Certification Officer). It is true according to the latest Union accounts available that he gave to the fighting fund £4,000 during the year. When first elected that figure was £12,000. Therefore proportionally he gives back less of his salary now than in the past.

Therefore he has a total remuneration package of £108,634 (£112,634 before the fighting fund donation has been deducted; this figure excludes employer’s NI contributions). In 2000 the total package was £73,789.

This compares to an “industry” in which 60% of full time permanent civil servants earn less than £25,000 (source: the PCS). It would take a member on £25,000 over three years to earn the gross salary Mark Serwotka presently enjoys; add in the other benefits and this catch up time gets longer still.

A number of branches have indicated that they will write to Mark Serwotka calling on him to cut his wages and stand by his 2000 election commitment. It is type of campaign in parallel to the election that will see a start towards a better union. So we will support Mark Serwotka in the upcoming election but serious activists and members have to made aware of the track record of the current GS, the 29,000 plus staff on the lowest possible redundancy terms, the true nature of the pension deal and his elevation into to the top 5% of salary earners in the UK. This awareness is too a vital step towards a better union.

Comments

Submitted by Matthew on Sat, 19/09/2009 - 13:20

I don't have a problem with supporting Serwotka as the only left (or even serious) candidate and particularly welcome any attempt to highlight his backsliding on the pledge to take the wages of an average member. More important however in the campaign to turn PCS into a better union is building a rank and file left in the branches that can put pressure on the union to support action on jobs, pay, pensions and other conditions and where possible organise action independently of the bureaucracy.

Incidentally, I remember Bryson from around the time of the 2000 GS election when he was a new, keen rep and the most ultra-left member of the SWP you can imagine. He left the SWP shortly afterwards because of what he then saw as its cosying up to the Socialist Party in the union! Last time I spoke to him a couple of years ago and challenged him on his now right-wing position he claimed it was all a ploy, a bit of 'playing to the gallery' to pick up votes from scabs and that underneath he was still a lefty.

I think the much vaunted 'pensions victory' is a chicken that is still to come home to roost as either New Labour or the Tories seem certain to review what Serwotka claimed was a cast iron guarantee after the next election.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.